The goal was to spend money on weapons. A loads of money, no wait, I mean insanely ridiculous amount of money:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html
Actually the article in your link says the biggest expense of the war is paying for medical care and disability benefits to the soldiers who served in the two conflicts. So, no buying weapons was not the goal. Keep in mind that I actually participated in the Iraq war, and due to the nature of my responsibilities I was privy to our overall tactical and strategic objectives. I can tell you that the publicly stated reason was fabricated, but our real objective wasn't anything sinister either, as people like you seem to think.
Are you suggesting that we don't pay for the medical care and disability benefits for our soldiers who served honorably? And yes they did serve honorably. Even if you don't agree with the conflict they fought, they still did their duties as soldiers, sometimes even against their own personal convictions and without regard for their own safety. Now if you are suggesting that we abandon our duty to our veterans who fought just to save a few dollars, then you are truly a terrible person. Especially since I am one of those veterans who is receiving disability and medical care because of injuries sustained during my service.
Nope. The article says the number of deaths attributed to the invasion, but not the number of deaths the US was directly responsible for. And there is a difference between the two. Deaths attributed to the invasion can include people the US killed, people our adversary killed, and people who died indirectly due to shortages of food, water, and medical care due to infrastructure damaged in the fighting. I asked you to provide a source that shows the US directly killed 1 million people. The source you gave me doesn't even say 1 million died overall, it says 601,000 died overall.
This is perverted seeing of the world. You dont need to kill milions and spend billions to counter someones growing influence....
Firstly, it was hundreds of thousands, not millions so stop exaggerating. Second, you are right it is a terrible way to look at the world. Unfortunately we still live in a world where a nation must look at the world that way or risk being dominated by the nations who do see the world that way. Countering Iran's influence was just one objective of the war in Iraq, and it is a long term goal that we are still working on. That is why we are making sure the government in Iraq doesn't collapse. The other objective of the war was to draw Al'Qaeda into the open. We wanted to tie them down into one contained theater of operations where we could isolate and destroy them as an international terrorist organization. And if you look at the world now, our plan seems to have worked for the time being. Al'Qaeda's ability to operate internationally has been decimated and they no longer have a unified global command structure. They have been reduced to a few isolated splinter groups in a few nations, that only call themselves Al'Qaeda but do not coordinate with each other or share Al'Qaeda's original strategic objectives. They tried to rebuild as an international organization in Mali two years ago, but the French stomped that out pretty quick.
